I'm not usually one for conspiracy theories, but...

[SackAttack]

I find the timing a little strange that AT&T sues Verizon over the 3G maps in their commercials, and a week later, I'm suddenly getting a 3G signal on my phone for the first time, well. Ever.

Is that what their line of argument is going to be in court? "We were in the process of upgrading the network, so their claim, even if accurate before we rolled out the upgrades, damages our business, give us money"?

It's just awfully close to the filing of the suit for me to think it's coincidental.

[RainMaker]

The lawsuit is pathetic. AT&T should be spending their time fixing their horrible network.

But I have to admit, my reception has gotten better. Still have about a 5-10% drop rate, but that's better than the 25% rate I had. I was even able to get reception at the Bulls game the other night which was usually a dead zone for me.

[SackAttack]

Well, that's the thing.

I'll use my apartment as an example - in the year-plus I've lived here, my signal inside my apartment has fluctuated such that I usually see either an 'E', a 'G' or no letter at all indicating my network connection.

When I have an 'E,' I can text freely, although my call quality may vary. When I have a 'G', texts don't go through and calls drop. When I have no letter, all I can do is make emergency phone calls.

Since...I dunno, let's call it just after midnight local time, I've seen '3G' where the letters would normally be, and that status has persisted inside my apartment. I haven't had any dropped texts. Too late at night to try calling friends or family to see about call quality/drop/etc.

So it's this sudden upgrade over what I'm used to, and that's wonderful, but the timing makes me suspicious. I'm skeptical that I would've seen that upgrade anytime soon if not for Verizon's commercials and AT&T's response.

[Alan T]

With number portability, why would you stick with AT&T if you get a bad signal from them in the places you are the most? Only reason I could think of is you signed a long contract with them early on?

I personally use AT&T because I had horrible problems getting Verizon signal where I used to live and AT&T worked great. Since I bought a new house 3 years ago, AT&T still works fine here and the places I normally go so haven't had any reason to change.. but if I was constantly not having any signal or signal issues, I wouldn't hesitate at all to switch carriers.

[claphamsa]

I use At&T simply because I have an iPhone..... but, I wouldn't change if I had the choice. I stay in DC, where all networks are equal! (Verizon used to have a metor monopoly, but thats gone)

[fantom1979]

Originally Posted by Alan T

With number portability, why would you stick with AT&T if you get a bad signal from them in the places you are the most? Only reason I could think of is you signed a long contract with them early on?

I personally use AT&T because I had horrible problems getting Verizon signal where I used to live and AT&T worked great. Since I bought a new house 3 years ago, AT&T still works fine here and the places I normally go so haven't had any reason to change.. but if I was constantly not having any signal or signal issues, I wouldn't hesitate at all to switch carriers.

The only reasons I could see someone using AT&T and they get a bad signal at home are:

1. The signed a long term contract and did not know AT&T sucked at the time of purchase

2. They wanted an Iphone.

[Mustang]

Don't most commercials have really small print where it says that the data is as of X date?

[Doug5984]

I have an iPhone and love it... However AT&T is trying very hard to get me to switch to Verizon.

I am at my hunting camp most every weekend and have no 3g coverage there, so I got a Verizon Internet card and it works great. AT&T drops so many calls, and takes a long time to connect on most of my other calls- it's horrible. Not to mention when I go to a Saints game the network locks up about 15 minutes before kick off and I get no signal until I'm halfway down poydrass after the game. I'm going to read the reviews for the droid and such, but might make the switch. All I really want is good internet on my phone, facebook, twitter, maps, weather and fantasy football.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by fantom1979

The only reasons I could see someone using AT&T and they get a bad signal at home are:

1. The signed a long term contract and did not know AT&T sucked at the time of purchase

2. They wanted an Iphone.

You have what, 15-30 days to get out of a cell phone contract? 1) is pretty much invalid unless you move during the contract.

Its probably 2)

[Alan T]

Yeah, I forgot about the iphones thing. Still, it seems that getting an iphone would be pointless if you don't have good coverage for it anyways.

Maybe I'm thinking too much to 10 years ago where you didn't take cell coverage for granted, you checked to see what signal worked where you were and went with that company. I can see people sticking with it for the iPhone and just tolerating it I suppose

[Izulde]

I'll be curious to see what people think of the Droid. I've been due for ages to upgrade my phone with Verizon, but I keep holding out hope for the iPhone or something akin to it.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Alan T

With number portability, why would you stick with AT&T if you get a bad signal from them in the places you are the most? Only reason I could think of is you signed a long contract with them early on?

Shrug. The signal issues usually affect me only in the apartment, and I don't do a ton of calling when I'm here. Generally just texting.

When I'm outside the apartment is when I use it for calls, and most of my family is on the same network...so it doesn't cost me minutes to call them, and they make up the bulk of my calls.

AT&T hasn't been a perfect provider, but even with the up-until-now lack of 3G, it hasn't been an irritant for me, either. I just find the timing on the apparent network upgrade to be strange.

[fantom1979]

Originally Posted by Izulde

I'll be curious to see what people think of the Droid. I've been due for ages to upgrade my phone with Verizon, but I keep holding out hope for the iPhone or something akin to it.

I have no personal experience, but I am a regualar listener to the This Week in Tech and This Week in Google podcasts, and they seem to love it. I believe they called it the second best smart phone behind the Iphone.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Mustang

Don't most commercials have really small print where it says that the data is as of X date?

It's not the accuracy of the data; AT&T is claiming that the map suggests the area in white on the map has no AT&T coverage while Verizon asserts that the map clearly is indicated that it applies only to 3G coverage.

It's much ado about nothing in my opinion. I can get 3G service with AT&T in the Ozark Mountains of Eureka Springs, Arkansas. That's fine with me. I don't need to use my phone in the middle of Wyoming that often.

I generally feel the major carriers are created equal and the only differences are that some carriers may have a better signal in some neighborhoods.

That said, considering Sprint's HQ is in KC, you'd think you could get Sprint coverage all over the city. I have a friend on Sprint and the number of random drops she gets is staggering.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

It's not the accuracy of the data; AT&T is claiming that the map suggests the area in white on the map has no AT&T coverage while Verizon asserts that the map clearly is indicated that it applies only to 3G coverage.

Verizon has some balls to claim that, considering their map in the commercial has such an ambiguous caption with the words "AT&T 3G Coverage."

[RainMaker]

I would cancel AT&T but we have 3 phones on the plan so it's literally a $600 switch.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Logan

Verizon has some balls to claim that, considering their map in the commercial has such an ambiguous caption with the words "AT&T 3G Coverage."

I don't see how Verizon is being all that ballsy or disingenuous. The 3G map is the 3G map. Of course those white spaces on the AT&T map don't equate to no data coverage, as they're probably served with EDGE or GPRS. AT&T probably has a fair point in that Verizon is probably taking advantage of consumer ignorance, since it is doubtful that most customers know the difference between 3G, EDGE, GPRS, etc. But, Verizon isn't lying about AT&T's 3G footprint.

What is ballsy is that AT&T is complaining now--after all, they are the ones who want us to assume that via "more bars in more places", coverage footprint equates with connectivity quality. I agree with the earlier post--AT&T should stop whining and ramp up their network improvements. They are running out of time, as iPhone exclusivity won't last forever.

With all that being said, I don't think there is any conspiracy--all of the major carriers are investing in network capacity, since the future will likely involve even more data-centric and bandwidth-hungry devices. The OP was probably the beneficiary of a scheduled network upgrade.

[RainMaker]

I don't feel sorry for AT&T. Their ads make them seem like they have great 3G coverage when they are by far the worst out of the big carriers.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't feel sorry for AT&T. Their ads make them seem like they have great 3G coverage when they are by far the worst out of the big carriers.

It's not necessarily the coverage footprint, but the capacity. For example, T-mobile has 3G coverage in fewer markets than At&T, but data transfer speeds tend to be faster in those markets with 3G.

Basically, AT&T did not have adequate capacity to handle the iPhone. They were not prepared for the fact that iPhone users use more data than other smartphone users. But, with all of those new iPhone subscribers, they certainly are not complaining from a revenue standpoint (at least in the short-term).

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

It's not necessarily the coverage footprint, but the capacity. For example, T-mobile has 3G coverage in fewer markets than At&T, but data transfer speeds tend to be faster in those markets with 3G.

Basically, AT&T did not have adequate capacity to handle the iPhone. They were not prepared for the fact that iPhone users use more data than other smartphone users. But, with all of those new iPhone subscribers, they certainly are not complaining from a revenue standpoint (at least in the short-term).

The issue I have is AT&T has had years now to up their capacity. I understand issues the first 6 months, but this is ridiculous.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Alan T

With number portability, why would you stick with AT&T if you get a bad signal from them in the places you are the most? Only reason I could think of is you signed a long contract with them early on?

For me one word - iPhone (although this is opening up now finally I believe).

That and the fact that I use my iPhone for Skype more than 'real' calls anyway.

PS - Anyone ever tried out the 'range boosters' for Phones? - I've been told by a chap in RadioShack don't bother - but thought I'd check for a public opinion.

[Comey]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

I don't see how Verizon is being all that ballsy or disingenuous.

Sarcasm meter broken?

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Comey

Sarcasm meter broken?

Uh, yeah... must be. I re-read his post and it's working better today...

[Klinglerware]

Dola-

fwiw, most cell-phone customers probably do think that no 3g means no coverage...

[MacroGuru]

I guess I am one of the rare pro AT&T guys that rarely has an issue with them. I have had AT&T since 1999, with only 1 yr since when work forced me to move to verizon.

I haven't had any issues with service or anything. I travel all over the world and I have had service everywhere I go.

As for dropped calls, I rarely get them.

[RainMaker]

I'm also going to commit blasphemy, but the iPhone isn't that great. I mean it was much different than anything years ago and the apps are fun, but as a phone it blows. Mine locks up a lot, the battery life is below average, and it's not real intuitive. I also don't think the phone is real good for calls as ambient noises get picked up far too easily. I would love to have my Blackberry back on Sprint.

[Doug5984]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm also going to commit blasphemy, but the iPhone isn't that great. I mean it was much different than anything years ago and the apps are fun, but as a phone it blows. Mine locks up a lot, the battery life is below average, and it's not real intuitive. I also don't think the phone is real good for calls as ambient noises get picked up far too easily. I would love to have my Blackberry back on Sprint.

I agree- when I first got it it was the only thing of its kind, since then there are so many phones that do what I need (sure they don't have 30,000 apps or whatever but they have what I need) and they are probably better as a phone.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Other than the battery life (which is pretty weak), I have no complaints about my iPhone. The coverage for me is miles better than I had with T-Mobile, and the price is actually about the same (other than the goofy app purchases I occasionally make).

[Apathetic Lurker]

Well thank goodness I havent fallen for all this "cellphone" hoopla... m-m-m landlines, rotary landlines

[EagleFan]

I still don't get it, what is the conspiracy?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

I still don't get it, what is the conspiracy?

Dunno if it IS a conspiracy, but I find the timing a little suspect on ad -> lawsuit -> look at us, Northern Wisconsin suddenly has 3G AT&T coverage!